Editorial

Which way Nepal Maoists?

Nepal is one of the most backward parts of the world. Its tradition of corrupt, reactionary and feudal politics has all too often invited comparisons with other equally obscure countries in the forgotten parts of Africa and Latin America. So it was not just progressive thinkers who welcomed the advent of the CPNM, better known as the Maoists, when they started their campaign more than a decade ago to rid Nepal of the monarchy and replace it with a modern political system more responsive to the needs of ordinary people. At the very least, therefore, the Maoists are to be congratulated for ridding the country of the self-indulgent King Gyanendra, his family, including his abhorrent son and former crown prince — as well as the legions of cronies and hangers on who were all too happy to suck Nepal dry for their own personal gains.

The Maoists' campaign, however, was not without cost. Summary executions, torture and the recruitment of child soldiers — some of them barely in their teens — are part and parcel of the price Nepal has had to pay for the revolutionaries in its midst. Sometime in the future there will undoubtedly be a reckoning. For the moment, however, it is the interaction of the Maoists with the levers of power that is all absorbing. Under their leader, Prachanda, they won the largest number of seats in the 2008 elections. Political power followed soon afterwards, until Prachanda walked out of government last summer following his failure to enforce the dismissal of the army chief. The details of Prachanda's struggle with General Rookmangud Katawal have become part of Nepalese political folklore. The general himself, now retired, has explained that their differences arose over the army's refusal to allow ex-Maoist fighters into its ranks. But whatever the rights and wrongs of their tussle — and each side has its share of powerful supporters — nothing should be allowed to detract from the shining success of the Maoists who have managed to emerge from relative obscurity to become the most powerful political players in national politics.

It is a signal achievement, not least because revolutionary movements rarely achieve power by peaceful means. Russia's Bolsheviks under Lenin and Trotsky fought a long and bloody campaign to achieve their aim of winning political power. So too did the Chinese communists under Mao from whom Prachanda likes to take his cue. Some like to compare Prachanda with Cuba's Fidel Castro. But that is not an exact comparison because, although Castro too displaced a corrupt regime and was supported at the time by an overwhelming wave of popular feeling, he did not fight and win an election. It is this willingness to play the democratic political game, however limited it might be, that sets Prachanda and the CPNM apart from other revolutionary movements. The alternative, if the Maoists had not fought the election, would have been prolonged instability, leading to chaos and misery for all Nepalese.

The key for Prachanda now is whether he can continue to adapt to changed political circumstances, but still work within the agreed constitutional framework to which all the country's political parties subscribe. Some CPNM purists would prefer to return to the hills from where they launched their revolutionary movement 12 years ago. They say that is better than participating in Kathmandu's messy political compromises that give a bad name to the ideals of justice and accountability for which they have fought long and hard. The problem with the argument of the purists is that it would inevitably paralyse government and contribute to a power vacuum that attracts all kinds of undesirables. True, Nepal is a landlocked country, sandwiched between China and India, so there is less chance of creating a haven in which extremists can flourish.

top